!

New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 11 June 2014
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-880-35508
LLP
Dot Registry LLC

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result

Did Not Prevail

Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

5 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned00325Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
1-A Delineation

0/4 Point(s)0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook, as the community demonstrates insufficient delineation, organization and preexistence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-A: Delineation.
Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear straightforward
membership definition and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplicant) among its members.

Page!1!

!
The community defined in the application (“LLP”) is:
Members of the community are defined as businesses registered as Limited Liability Partnerships
with the United States or its territories. Limited Liability Partnerships or (LLP’s) as they arecommonly abbreviated, are specifically designed to represent professional service businesses in the
US . Limited Liability Partnerships are commonly adopted by businesses which focus on:
accounting, attorneys, architects, dentists, doctors and other fields treated as professionals undereach state’s law….
A Limited Liability Partnership is defined as a partnership in which some or all partners (depending
on jurisdiction) have limited liability. LLP’s therefore exhibit qualities of both partnerships andcorporations. In an LLP, one partner is not responsible or liable for another partner’s misconduct ornegligence. This distinction is why the LLP is a popular business entity amongst accountants,
doctors, and lawyers; which deal heavily with issues that could inspire mal-practice lawsuits.
This community definition shows a clear and straightforward membership. While broad, the community isclearly defined, as membership requires formal registration as a limited liability partnership with the relevant
US state (LLPs operate in about 40 US states). In addition, limited liability partnerships must comply with US
state law and show proof of best practice in commercial dealings to the relevant state authorities.
However, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness and recognition of acommunity among its members. This is because limited liability partnerships operate in vastly different
sectors, which sometimes have little or no association with one another. !Research showed that firms are
typically organized around specific industries, locales, and other criteria not related to the entities structure asan LLP. Based on the Panel’s research, there is no evidence of LLPs from different sectors acting as acommunity as defined by the Applicant Guidebook. There is no evidence that these limited liability
partnerships would associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by the applicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application only
satisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
The community as defined in the application does not have at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity. Although responsibility for corporate registrations and the regulations pertaining to corporate
formation are vested in each individual US state, these government agencies are fulfilling a function, rather
than representing the community. In addition, the offices of the Secretaries of State of US states are notmainly dedicated to the community as they have other roles/functions beyond processing corporate
registrations. According to the application:
Limited Liability Partnerships can be formed through all but ten states in the United States.
Therefore members of this community exist in close to forty US states. LLP formation guidelines are
dictated by state law and can vary based on each state’s regulations. Persons form an LLP by filing
required documents with the appropriate state authority, usually the Secretary of State.
The community as defined in the application does not have documented evidence of community activities.
As there is no entity that is mainly dedicated to the community as defined in the .LLP application, there is no
documented evidence of community activities.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application does
not satisfy either of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.

Page!2!

!
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed).
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a get a sought-after generic word
as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application). ). The
Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed toobtain a sought-after corporate identifier as a gTLD string, as these limited liability partnerships would
typically not associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by the applicant. The
community therefore could not have been active prior to the above date (although its constituent parts wereactive)..
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application does
not fulfill the requirements for pre-existence.!
1-B Extension

0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as identified in the application did
not meet the criterion for Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of
the Applicant Guidebook, as the application did not demonstrate considerable size or longevity for thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of a considerable size. The community for .LLP as defined in
the application is large in terms of number of members. According to the application, “LLP’s represent asmall but prestigious sector of business in the United States.”
However, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness andrecognition of a community among its members. This is because limited liability partnerships operate invastly different sectors, which sometimes have little or no association with one another. !Research showedthat firms are typically organized around specific industries, locales, and other criteria not related to theentities structure as an LLP. Based on the Panel’s research, there is no evidence of LLPs from different
sectors acting as a community as defined by the Applicant Guidebook. These limited liability partnerships
would therefore not typically associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by theapplicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application only
satisfies one of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for size.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. As mentioned previously,according to section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook the CPE
process is conceived to identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false
positives” (awarding undue priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a geta sought-after generic word as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified
community application). The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that this application refers to

Page!3!

!
a “community” construed to obtain a sought-after corporate identifier as a gTLD string, as these limited
liability partnerships would typically not associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by
the applicant. Therefore, the pursuits of the .LLP community are not of a lasting, non-transient nature.
Additionally, as previously stated, the community as defined in the application does not have awareness andrecognition of a community among its members. This is because limited liability partnerships operate invastly different sectors, which sometimes have little or no association with one another. !Research showedthat firms are typically organized around specific industries, locales, and other criteria not related to theentities structure as an LLP. Based on the Panel’s research, there is no evidence of LLPs from different
sectors acting as a community as defined by the Applicant Guidebook. These limited liability partnerships
would therefore not typically associate themselves with being part of the community as defined by theapplicant.

!

The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined in the application does
not satisfy either of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
2-A Nexus

0/4 Point(s)0/3 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook.
The string identifies the community, but over-reaches substantially beyond the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.
To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus,
the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify” means that the applied-for string shouldclosely describe the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond thecommunity.
The applied-for string (.LLP) over-reaches substantially, as the string indicates a wider or related communityof which the applicant is a part but is not specific to the applicant’s community. According to the application
documentation:“.LLP” was chosen as our gTLD string because it is the commonly used abbreviation for the entity
type that makes up the membership of our community. In the English language Limited Liability
Partnership is primarily shortened to LLP when used to delineate business entity types…
LLP is a recognized abbreviation in all 50 states and US territories denoting the registration type of abusiness entity. Our research indicates that LLP as corporate identifier is used in eleven otherjurisdictions (Canada, China, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Poland, Romania,
Singapore, and the United Kingdom) though their formation regulations are different from theUnited States and their entity designations would not fall within the boundaries of our community
definition.
While the string identifies the name of the community, it captures a wider geographical remit than thecommunity has, as the corporate identifier is used in Poland, the UK, Canada and Japan, amongst others.
Therefore, there is a substantial over-reach between the proposed string and community as defined by theapplicant.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applied-for string over-reaches substantiallybeyond the community. It therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.

Page!4!

!
2-B Uniqueness

0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Uniqueness as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The application received a score of 0 out of 1
point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application does not demonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on
Nexus and is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. The Community Priority Evaluation panel
determined that the applied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for
Uniqueness.

Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3-A Eligibility

3/4 Point(s)1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Eligibility as
specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as eligibility
is restricted to community members. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by limiting
eligibility to registered limited liability partnerships and by cross-referencing their documentation against theapplicable US state’s registration records in order to verify the accuracy of their application. (Comprehensive
details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Community Priority Evaluation
panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection

1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Name
Selection as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook
as name selection rules are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD.
The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
To fulfill the requirements for Name Selection, the registration policies for name selection for registrants
must be consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. The application
demonstrates adherence to this requirement by outlining a comprehensive list of name selection rules, suchas requirements that second level domain names should match or include a substantial part of the registrant’slegal name, and specifying that registrants will not be able to register product line registrations, amongst otherrequirements. (Comprehensive details are provided in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The
Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill therequirements for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use

1/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application met the criterion for Content and
Use as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as therules for content and use are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
TLD. The application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.

Page!5!

!
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies must include rules for content anduse for registrants that are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for
gTLD. The application demonstrates adherence to this requirement by noting that all registrants must adhere
to the content restrictions outlined in the applicant’s abuse policies. (Comprehensive details are provided in
Section 20e of the applicant documentation). The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that theapplication satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Content and Use.
3-D Enforcement

0/1 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for
Enforcement as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant
Guidebook as the application provided specific enforcement measures but did not include appropriate appeal
mechanisms. The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a
coherent set. For example, it a registrant wrongfully applied for and was awarded a second level domain
name, the right to hold this domain name will be immediately forfeited. (Comprehensive details are provided
in Section 20e of the applicant documentation). However, the application did not outline an appeals process.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application satisfies only one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement.

Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
4-A Support

2/4 Point(s)1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Support specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook as
there was documented support from at least one group with relevance. The application received a score of 1out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or has documented support from, therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means the institution(s)/organization(s) that, through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community. To
receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one group with
relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized community
institution(s)/member organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community, or
documented support from a majority of the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s).
However, the applicant possesses documented support from at least one group with relevance and thisdocumentation contained a description of the process and rationale used in arriving at the expression of
support.
The application included letters from a number of Secretaries of State of US states, which were considered toconstitute support from groups with relevance, as each Secretary of State has responsibility for corporate
registrations and the regulations pertaining to corporate formation in its jurisdiction. These entities are not
the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), as these government agencies are fulfillinga function, rather than representing the community. The viewpoints expressed in these letters were notconsistent across states. While several US states expressed clear support for the applicant during the Lettersof Support verification process, others either provided qualified support, refrained from endorsing one

Page!6!

!
particular applicant over another, or did not respond to the verification request. Letters of support fromother entities did not meet the requirement for relevance based on the Applicant Guidebook criteria, as they
were not from the recognized community institutions/member organizations. The Community Priority
Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition

1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Opposition specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the application received relevant opposition from one group of non-negligible size. The application
received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one group of non-negligible size.
The application received several letters of opposition, one of which was determined to be relevant opposition
from an organization of non-negligible size. This opposition was from a community that was not identified
in the application but which has an association to the applied-for string. Opposition was on the grounds that
limiting registration to US registered corporations only would unfairly exclude non-US businesses. The
remaining letters were either from groups/individuals of negligible size, or were not from communities
which were not mentioned in the application but which have an association to the applied for string. The
Community Priority Evaluation Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfied the requirements for
Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the Applicant Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.
For updated application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the Applicant Guidebook
and the ICANN New gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page!7!